Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARTIC v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 12152/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions (see, in particular, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, § 49, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  CIORAP v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 12152/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions (see, in particular, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, § 49, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 25763/03

  MACIUCA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 12152/05

  An outline of the Court's case-law under Article 3 of the Convention in connection with conditions of detention can be found in a number of judgments concerning Romania (see, in particular, Maciuca v. Romania, no. 25763/03, 26 May 2009; Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, 9 November 2010; Goh v. Romania, no. 9643/03, 21 June 2011; and Badila v. Romania, no. 31725/04, 4 October 2011).

• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 12934/02

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 12152/05

  m, which falls short of the standards imposed by the Court's case-law (see Marian Stoicescu v. Romania, no. 12934/02, §§ 13 and 24, 16 July 2009, and Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, § 122, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 14262/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 12152/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions (see, in particular, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, § 49, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9643/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 12152/05

  An outline of the Court's case-law under Article 3 of the Convention in connection with conditions of detention can be found in a number of judgments concerning Romania (see, in particular, Maciuca v. Romania, no. 25763/03, 26 May 2009; Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, 9 November 2010; Goh v. Romania, no. 9643/03, 21 June 2011; and Badila v. Romania, no. 31725/04, 4 October 2011).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  BADILA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 12152/05

  An outline of the Court's case-law under Article 3 of the Convention in connection with conditions of detention can be found in a number of judgments concerning Romania (see, in particular, Maciuca v. Romania, no. 25763/03, 26 May 2009; Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, 9 November 2010; Goh v. Romania, no. 9643/03, 21 June 2011; and Badila v. Romania, no. 31725/04, 4 October 2011).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 12152/05

  The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 4792/03

  PETREA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 12152/05

  Ordinance no. 56/2003 has been repealed and replaced by Law no. 275 of 20 July 2006, which has restated the content of Article 3 mentioned above in Article 38, which provides that a judge shall have jurisdiction over complaints by convicted persons against the measures taken by the prison authorities (see also Petrea v. Romania, no. 4792/03, §§ 21-23, 29 April 2008).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 10/10

  BRUNNER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 12152/05

  10/10/2012.
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 22088/04

  BRAGADIREANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03

  SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 12535/04

  ARTIMENCO c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 3036/04

  [FRE]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 20307/02

  ALI CONTRE LA ROUMANIE ET 120 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  12152/05.
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  [FRE]

  The Court has already found violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the material conditions of detention in Rahova Prison, especially with respect to overcrowding and lack of hygiene (see, among others, Vartic v. Romania, no. 12152/05, § 53, 10 July 2012; Iacov Stanciu, § 179; and Goh, § 66, both cited above).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 27631/12

  VARTIC (V) v. ROMANIA

  First, they claimed that the Court had already found that the applicant's complaint under Article 3 was manifestly ill-founded, since it was part of the case of Vartic v. Romania (no. 12152/05, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 257/14

  BARBU v. ROMANIA

  The report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("the CPT"), published on 11 December 2008, following a visit to different police detention facilities and prisons in Romania, indicated that the lack of beds remained a constant problem, not only in the establishments visited but also at a national level, and that this had remained so since CPT's first visit to Romania in 1995 (see Artimenco v. Romania no. 12535/04, § 23, 30 June 2009; and Vartic v. Romania, no. 12152/05, § 35, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 32800/12

  AUREL RADULESCU v. ROMANIA

  The Court has already found violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the material conditions of detention in Rahova Prison (see, among others, Vartic v. Romania, no. 12152/05, § 53, 10 July 2012, and Iacov Stanciu, cited above, § 179) and in Jilava Prison (see Jiga v. Romania, no. 14352/04, §§ 65-66, 16 March 2010, and Grozavu v. Romania, no. 24419/04, § 44, 2 November 2010).